Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the cost model (free within a daily allowance, then $0.001 USDC per call via x402), which an agent should know before invoking. It stops short of stating result limits or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the search capability and filters come first, the pricing caveat second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, filter dimensions and cost. The only gap is operational detail such as result limits, pagination or match behavior for ambiguous queries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in-schema (q as name/acronym/keyword, country as 2-letter code, type as a fixed list). The description mirrors those same fields without adding format or syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find research organisations') plus the three match fields (name, acronym, keyword), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent scholarly__institutions-search sibling, which covers a similar resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only restates capability ('optionally filtered by country and type'); it never says when to use this tool versus ror__organisation (single lookup) or scholarly__institutions-search, nor any preconditions or exclusions. No routing guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.